the conference bill for the admission of 

KANSAS. 

F 685 
. B612 

c °pv i SPEECH. 


HON. JOHN ArBINGHAM, OF OHIO. 

1 ) 


Delivered in the U. S. House of Representatives, April 28, 1858. 




The House having under consideration the 
report of the Conference Committee on Senate 
bill No. 16, for the admission of the State of 
Kansas into the Union— 

Mr. BINGHAM said: 

Mr. Speaker: I congratulate the country 
that the distinguished gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Stephens] has seen fit on this day to ac 
knowledge what he has heretofore, during the 
last and present Congress, steadily and persist 
ently denied, that the position of those with 
whom I have the honor to act on this floor and 
elsewhere, in regard to the power of Coagre3s 
over the several Territories during the whole 
time in which they continue to be Territories, 
and up to the very moment of their tran£ : „ion 
from a Territory to a State, is the true position 
under the Constitution of the United States, 
and one to be recognised and legitimately en¬ 
forced by Congressional legislation. 

The gentleman from Georgia predicated his 
reply to the distinguished and learned gentle 
man from Maryland, [Mr. Davis,] amoDg other 
thing", upon the ground that the Congress of 
the United States had heretofore dictated to the 
people of Louisiana conditions precedent to 
their admission into the Union a* a State. 1 
desire, inasmuch as the gentleman from Geor¬ 
gia made special reference to the Louisiana 
enabling act, to call the attention of the House 
and of the country to its provisions, for the 
purpose of showing that it goes as far as any 
man on this side of the House has ever ventur 
ed to go in respect to the authority of Congress 
over the Territories, and its power to impose 
restrictions upon the admission of new States 
into the Union. 

Admit that the act of Congress, passed in 
1811, to authorize the people of Louisiana to 
form a State Constitution and Government, and 
to provide for their admission into the Union, 
was a just and constitutional enactment, and 


you admit all that we ask, all that any man can 
ask, upon which to predicate an argument 
against the proposition submitted to this House 
by the committee of conference, appointed 
through it, and in favor of the power of Con¬ 
gress not only to reject that bill, but to reject 
the Lecompton Constitution under any and all 
conceivable circumstances. 

I do not know, nor do I care, whether the 
honorable gentleman from Georgia assumed 
and asserted the validity of the Louisiana act 
merely for the occasion, or not. I thank him 
for his concession that that act was a precedent 
which he might with propriety quote here 
against the argument of the gentleman from 
Maryland. Sir, if the gentleman’s admission 
and assumption be right, if that statute be 
valid, it totally sweeps away the dogma of the 
sovereignty of new States in the formation of 
Constitutions preparatory to admission, against 
the expressed will of the whole people of the 
United States, as set forth by their Represent¬ 
atives in Congress assembled. The admission 
of the authority of Congress to impose upon 
new States the restrictions of that statute con¬ 
cedes the right of Congress to reject any new 
State until it shall have adopted a Constitution, 
not only republican, but also consistent with 
the Constitution of the United States, and also 
in conformity with such conditions precedent 
as Congress may deem just and proper to be 
imposed. I quote from that statute as follows: 

“ Sec. 2. And be it further enacted , That all 
‘ free white male citizens of the United States, 

‘ who shall have arrived at the age of twenty* 

‘ one years, and resided within the said Territo¬ 
ry at least one year previous to the day of 
‘ election, and shall have paid a territorial, 

1 county, district, or parish tax; and all persons 
‘ having in other respects the legal qualifica- 
1 tions to vote for representatives in the Gen- 
‘ eral Assembly of the said Territory, be, and 







2 


4 they are hereby, authorized to choose repre- 
4 sentatives to form a Convention, who shall be 
4 apportioned among the several counties, dis- 

* tricts, and parishes, within the said Territory 

* of Orleans, in such manner as the Legislature 
4 of the said Territory shall by law direct. The 
4 number of representatives shall not exceed 
4 sixty; and the elections for the representa 

* tives aforesaid shall take place on the third 
4 Monday in September next, and shall be con- 
4 ducted in the same manner as is now provided 
4 by the laws of the said Territory for electing 

* members for the House of Representatives. 

“Sec. 3. And be it further enacted , That 
4 the members of the Convention, when duly 
4 elected, be, and they are hereby, authorized 
4 to meet at the city of New Orleans, on the 
4 first Monday of November next, which Con- 
4 vention, when met, shall first determine, by a 
4 majority of the whole number elected, whether 

* it be expedient or not, at that time, to form a 
4 Constitution and State Government for the 
4 people within the said Territory; and if it be 
4 determined to be expedient, then the Conven- 
4 tion shall in like manner declare, in behalf of 
! the people of the said Territory, that it adopts 
4 the Constitution of the United States ; where- 
4 upon the said Convention shall be, and hereby 
4 is, authorized to form a Constitution and State 
4 Government for the people of the said Terri 

4 tory, provided the Constitution to be formed, 
4 in virtue of the authority herein given, shall 
4 be republican, and consistent with the Consti- 
4 tution of the United States; that it shall con- 
4 tain the fundamental principles of civil and re- 
s ligious liberty ; that it shall secure to the eiti- 
4 zen the trial by jury in all criminal cases, and 

* the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, con- 
4 form&bly ;o the provisions of the Constitution 
4 of the United States; and that after the ad- 
4 mission of the said Territory of Orleans as a 
4 State into the Union, the laws which such 
4 State may pass shall be promulgated, and its 
4 records of every description shall be preserved, 
4 and its judicial and legislative written pro- 
4 ceedings conducted, in the language in which 
4 the laws and the judicial and legislative writ- 
4 ten proceediugs of the United States are now 
4 published and conducted: And provided, also, 
4 That the said Convention shall provide, by an 
4 ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of 
4 the United States, that the people inhabiting 
4 the said Territory do agree and declare, that 
4 they forever disclaim all right or title to the 
4 waste or unappropriated lands lying within the 
4 said Territory; and that the same shall be 
4 and remain at the sole and entire disposition 
4 of the United States; and, moreover, that each 
4 and every tract of land sold by Congress shall 
4 be and remain exempt from any tax, laid by 
4 the order or under the authority of the State, 
4 whether for State, county, township, parish, or 
4 any other purpose whatever, for the term of 
4 five years from and after the respective days oi 

* the sales thereof; and that the lands belonging 


‘ to citizens of the United States, residing with- 
4 out the said State, shall never be taxed higher 
4 than the lands belonging to persons residing 
4 therein ; and that no taxes shall be imposed 
4 on lands the property of the United States; 

4 and that the river Mississippi, and the navi- 
1 gable rivers and waters leading into the same 
4 or into the Gulf of Mexico, shall be common 
4 highways, and forever free, as well to the in- 
4 habitants of the said State as to other citizeua 
4 of the United States, without any tax, duty, 
4 impost, or toll, thereof imposed by the said 
4 State.” 

I am not here to find fault with the argu¬ 
ments cf the learned gentleman from Maryland, 
[Mr. Davis,] I am not here to follow the gen¬ 
tleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] with the 
new lights he has discovered in his way to this 
political Damascus. The latter gentleman has, 
if you please, become an ally of the Republi¬ 
cans, of those he is wont to call Black Repub¬ 
licans. He is working (not voting) with us to¬ 
day. He is agreeing with us that Congress is 
restricted in nothing but its own conviction and 
its own judgment, in regard to the limitations 
which it may rightfully impose, under the Con¬ 
stitution, upon new States, as conditions pre¬ 
cedent to their admission into the Union. 

• To make good my assertion, I need only re¬ 
fer specifically to the limitations imposed by 
the Louisiana act of 1811, providing for the ad¬ 
mission of the State of Louisiana, which I have 
just read, and which the gentleman from Geor¬ 
gia approves, aud upon which he takes his 
stand. 

That statute, I repeat, goes as far as I have 
ever ventured to go on this question, and as far 
as any gentleman upon this side has ever ven¬ 
tured to go. I beg the attention of the House 
to the conditions precedent and restrictions 
which that act imposes upon the sovereignty of 
Louisiana. First, there is the condition prece¬ 
dent tjiat before the people of Louisiana, after 
the election of their delegates to a Convention, 
should take another step towards the organiza¬ 
tion of a State Government, their delegates, iu 
Convention assembled, should, in their behalf, 
declare that they apopt the Constitution of the 
United States, together, of course, with all its 
limitations and restrictions upon State sover¬ 
eignty. Having first performed this condition 
precedent, and not betore, they might proceed 
to form a State Constitution; provided, says the 
statute— 

44 That said Constitution so to be formed shall 
4 be republican ; shall be consistent with the 
4 Cous itution of the United States; shall pro- 
4 claim the fundamental principles of civil and 
4 religious liberty ; shall secure to every citizen 
4 charged with a criminal offence a trial by 
4 jury ; shall secure, also, the writ of habeas 
4 corpus, as provided in the Constitution of the 
4 United States ; shall provide that the legisla- 
4 tion and judicial action of said State be con- 
4 ducted in the English language; shall sur- 






3 


T> 


$ 


52 


‘ render the right of the State over certain 
‘ waste lands; also, its right to tax United 
4 States property ” 

Sir, this statute does not stop where certain 
gentlemen upon the other side of the House 
have been telling us that our power stops, to 
wit: with the mere declaration that the Con¬ 
stitution of the proposed new State should be 
republican That statute, as I have shown, 
goes much further, and requires that the new 
Constitution eball conform to all the conditions 
and restrictions which T have enumerated. 
This statute further provides, in the fourth 
section, that the Constitution so framed shall 
be submitted to the Congress of the United 
States for approval or rejection. For what 
purpose? To give to the Congress of the Uni¬ 
ted States the opportunity of judging whether 
these conditions precedent had been complied 
with ; whether the people had, by their legally- 
chosen delegates, adopted the Constitution of 
the United States; whether their new Consti¬ 
tution, contrary to and in contravention of their 
local laws—the civil law under which they 
then lived—secured the right of trial by jury 
in all criminal cases ; whether the great writ of 
habeas corpus was secured to the citizens within 
the limits of the State; and whether, in addition, 
their Constitution declared, as required, the 
great and fundamental principles of civil and 
religious liberty. Unless these provisions ap¬ 
peared, Congress, by this fourth section, re¬ 
served the power to say that Louisiana should 
not be permitted to organize herself into a 
State Government for admission into this Un¬ 
ion—should not, in fact, become a State, but 
should remain a Territory. 

I ask the gentleman from Georgia, in order 
that I may make no mistake in this matter, 
whether he concedes that that enactment was 
constitutional; that it* was the right of Con¬ 
gress, in 1811, under the Federal Constitution, 
to dictate to the people of Louisiana the condi¬ 
tion precedent that their-Constitution should be 
consistent with the Constitution of the United 
States ? whether he concedes that it was 
competent for Congress, under that act of 1811, 
to dictate to that people the further condition 
precedent that they should secure the right of 
trial by jury, in all criminal cases, to citizens 
within the State? whether he concedes that it 
was competent for Congress, by that act, to 
dictate to the people of Louisiana, as a further 
condition precedent to the establishment of a 
State Goverument, and their admission into 
the Union, that they should secure the benefits 
of the right of habeas corpus in all cases, pur¬ 
suant to the Constitution of the United States? 
and, finally, I ask him whether he concedes 
that it was competent fGr the Government of 
the United States, speaking through Congress 
by that act, to declare that that people should 
abolish their civil law, and take ours ? If he 
concedes all this, as he did by citing that act, 
he concedes all that 1 claim, and ail that my 


friends have ever claimed, in this great contro¬ 
versy. Who. sir, is to judge whether the Con¬ 
stitution, framed by a people within a Territory, 
“is consistent with the Constitution of the 
United States?” By that enactment, upon 
which the gentleman planted himself, it is 
manifestly declared that the Congress of the 
United States shall judge of that, and no one 
else. That is Republicanism— Black Repub 
licanisro. 

Mr. CURTIS. I beg the gentleman’s par¬ 
don ; it is not Black Republicanism, aa some 
understand it. 

Mr. BINGHAM. It is my Black Republi¬ 
canism. That legislation of 1811 is suatained 
by precedent and commanding authority. It 
was sanctioned and approved by a man who 
has been called the Father of the Constitution 
by way of pre eminence—Mr. Madison. In ad¬ 
dition to his approval of the act, I have before 
me what he has written on this provision of the 
Constitution, that Congress u may admit new 
States into the Union.” He says: 

44 In the Articles of Confederation, no provis- 
4 ion is found on this important subject. Can- 
4 ada was to be admitted of right on her joining 
4 in the measures of the United States, and the 
‘ other colonies, by which were evidently meant, 
4 the other British colonies, at the discretion of 
4 nine States. The eventual establishment of 
1 new States seems to have been overlooked by 
4 the compilers of that instrument. We have 
4 seen the inconvenience of this omission, and 
4 the assumption of power into which Congress 
‘ has been led by it. With great propriety, 
4 therefore, has the new system supplied the 
4 defect. Tbe general precaution that no new 
4 States shall be formed without the concur- 
4 rence of the Federal authority * * * is 

4 consonant to the principles which ought to 
4 govern such transactions.” 

There is where I stand ; there is where those 
with whom I act, in reference to this question, 
stand ; that there can be no such thing as an 
existing State, organized within the national 
territories, outside of the Union, and without 
the consent of the Federal Government; that 
there can be, under our Constitution, no new 
State rightfully organized within a United 
States Territory, except it be organized in con¬ 
sonance with the Constitution of the United 
States, and with the consent of the Government 
of the United States given to such State organ¬ 
ization, either previously or subsequently to its 
formation, and before the admission of such 
State into the Union. That is the position of 
Madison, that is the Republican position, and 
that seems to be the position of the gentleman 
from Georgia. Sir, other precedents justify 
me in saying that conditions and restrictions 
upon the organization of State Governments 
within the Territories mav be imposed by the 
Congress of the United States. I speak now 
of new States organized within the Territories 
of the Union more particularly. I do not wish 






4 


to speak now of the organization of Dew States 
within the territory of a single State of the 
Union. That belongs to another provision of 
the Constitution, and we have nothing to do 
with it in this issue. We have other prece¬ 
dents, sir, for the position we assume of this 
power of Congress to impose limitations and 
restrictions upon new Sta‘es—precedents fur¬ 
nished by the action of the fathers of the Con¬ 
stitution. 

Sir, there was a condition precedent in the 
act providing for the admission of the S'ate 
which I have the honor in part to represent, 
and which authoriz°d the people of Ohio to 
frame a State Constitution and Government, 
preparatory to their admission into the Union. 
That condition precedent was this : 

u That the Constitution so to be formed by 
1 the people of the Territory of Ohio shall not 
‘ be repugnant to the sixth article of the ordi- 
‘ nance 1787 ” 

What was that article ? It was, sir : 

u That Slavery or involuntary servitude, ex- 
‘ cept as a punishment for crime, should be 
‘ forever prohibited/’ 

Upon that condition the State of Ohio was 
permitted to organize a Constitution, and to 
come into the Union. The men who framed 
that statute, and who voted for it in this and in 
the other Hall, did not get ihis new idea into 
their heads, that the people of a Territory might 
frame a Constitution and organize a S ate Gov¬ 
ernment, and demand admission into the Union 
upon the simple condition that their Coustitu 
tion should be republican. What is a republi¬ 
can government? A republican government 
is simply a government where the sovereign au¬ 
thority is exercised through delegates or repre¬ 
sentatives chosen by the people. The Congress 
of 1802, which provided for the admission of 
the State of Ohio, thought that there was some 
thing more than a republican Constitution to 
be framed; and hence they put in *he other con 
dition precedent, that the Constitution of Ohio 
should not be repugnant to the sixth article of 
the ordinance of 1787, which forever prohibited 
Slavery. Ohio came into the Union under that 
condition precedent; and for six years after her 
admission, and by force of this very restriction, 
she was denied the privilege of engaging in the 
foreign slave trade, which was being carried on 
by the original States under the express reser¬ 
vation of the Constitution of the United Spates, 
which authorized that trade until the year 1808 
by any of the original thirteen States. 

That same condition precedent was applied 
to the State of Illinois, and upon a strict com¬ 
pliance with that condition was she permitted 
to come into the Union. The same condition 
precedent was applied to the SJate Indiana; 
and without that condition complied wiih, she 
would not have been permitted to come into the 
Union. Her people petitioned Congress to re¬ 
peal that restriction, and Congress reported, ' 


through Randolph, of Roanoke, against the re¬ 
peal, and refused to do it. 

Now, sir, on these conditions precedent I 
might rest this argument; but there is yet an¬ 
other cf great feignificanc?—the celebrated 
joint resolution which authorized the admission 
of Texas into the Union. The whnle territory 
embraced within the limits of that S ate—not¬ 
withstanding the asserted sovereignty of the 
State—was, by a condition precedent set forth 
in the act of admission, subjected to certain con¬ 
ditions and restrictions impos'-d upon no other 
State of the Union. Upon this point I chal¬ 
lenge contradiction. 

What i 8 the general provision of the Consti¬ 
tution? Simply that new Spates may be admit¬ 
ted by Congress into the Union; also, that fur¬ 
ther provision, “that no new State shall be form- 
‘ ed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other 
1 State, nor any State be formed by the junction 
1 of two or more States, or parts of States, with- 
‘ out the consent [in the latter case] of the 
* Legislatures of the States concerned, as well 
‘ as of Congress .” And what was the condi¬ 
tion precedent annexed to the admission of the 
State of Texas? I will read the act, that there 
may he no misunderstanding of it. It is as 
follows: 

“ Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep¬ 
resentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That Congress doth 
consent that the territory properly included 
within and rightfully belonging to the Repub¬ 
lic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, 
to be called the State of Texas, with a repub¬ 
lican form of government, to be adopted by 
the people of said Republic, by deputies in 
Convention assembled, with the consent of the 
existing Government, in order that the same 
may be admitted as one of the States of this 
Union. -•*' 

“ And be ii further ^resolved, That the fore¬ 
going consent of Congress is given upon the 
following conditions,'and with the following 
guarantees, to wit: First. Said State to be 
formed, subject to the adjustment, by this 
Government, of all questions of boundary that 
may arise with other Governments ; and the 
Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence 
of its adoption by the people of said Republic 
of Texas, sball be transmitted to the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, to be laid before 
Congress, for its final aetion, on or before the 
first day of January, 1846 Second. Said State, 
when admitted into the Union, after ceding to 
the United States all public edifices, fortifica¬ 
tions, barracks, por' and harbors, navy and 
navy yards, docks, magazines, arms, arma¬ 
ments, and all other property and means per¬ 
taining to the public defence belonging to said 
Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public 
funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, 
which may belong to or be due and owing 
said Republic; and shall also retain all the 
vacant and unappropriated lands lying within 






5 


‘ its limits, to be applied to the payment of the 
‘ debts and liabilities of the said Republic of 
‘ Texas, aod the residue of said lands, after 
‘ discharging said debts and liabilities, to be 
1 disposed of as said State may direct; but in 
‘ no event are said debts and liabilities to be- 
‘ come a charge upon the Government of the 
‘ United States. Third. New States, of conve 
‘ nient size, not exceeding four in number, in 
‘ addition to said S r ate of Texas, and having 
‘ sufficient population, may hereafter, by the 
‘ consent of said State, be formed out of the 
‘ territory thereof, which shall be entitled to 
1 admission under the provisions of the Fed 
‘ eral Constitution. And such States as may be 
‘ formed out. of that portion of said territory 
‘ lying south of 36° 30 / north latitude, common- 
‘ ly known as the Missouri Compromise line, 
‘ shall bepadmitted into the Union with or with- 
1 out Slavery, as the people of each State ask- 
‘ lug admission may desire. And in such 
‘ State or States as shall be formed out of said 
‘ territory north of said Missouri Compromise 
‘ line, Slavery or involuntary servitude (except 
‘ for crime) shall be prohibited/’ 

There is a restriction upon State sovereign¬ 
ty—Texas as a State, as well as the new States 
hereafter to be formed within the limits of 
Texas, are bound and fettered by that, restric¬ 
tion—by its terms, no new State can hereafeer 
be formed within the territory of Texas, and ad 
mitted into the Union, unless such State so to 
be formed, north of 36° 30 / north latitude, shall 
forever exclude Slavery. 

Sir, with these precedents, and the great and 
commanding authorities of Jefferson and Madi 
son, who signed the statu es I have cited, it 
seems to me it is not necessary to multiply ar¬ 
guments upon the subject of the power of Con¬ 
gress to impose these restrictions, and thus 
limit State sovereignty. 

Mr. GIDDING8. I wish to make one sug¬ 
gestion here; and that is, that the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] voted for those 
resolutions for the admission of Texas. 

Mr. BINGHAM. That is consistent with his 
argument here to-day, in claimirg that the 
Congress of the United States may impose con¬ 
ditions precedent upon the admission of new 
States within the limits of the Constitution. 
That vote of his asserted the right of Congress 
to exclude Slavery within new States. That is 
where I want to place him; that is where he 
belongs, and where I belong. I do not recog¬ 
nise the right of five hundred men, or five hun¬ 
dred thousand men, to establish any State Con 
stitution, or Government, anywhere within the 
territories of the United States, without the 
consent of the people of the United States, ex¬ 
pressed eiAer previously or subsequently, 
through their Representatives in Congress as¬ 
sembled. 

This brings me, therefore, to the point now 
before us. I do not find fault, with this bill be¬ 
cause it asserts the power of Congress to annex 


conditions precedent upon which alone the 
State of Kansas is to come into the Union. I 
find fault with this bill because, in my judg¬ 
ment, it is a great crime, not only against the 
people of Kansas, but against the Constitution 
of our common country, and against the sacred 
rights of human nature. 

Gloze that bill over with what words you 
may, it is a written crime ; enact it into a law, 
and it will be a legislative atrocity engrossed 
upon parchment. Dignify ’his act with what 
title you please, history, stern, truthful, impar¬ 
tial history, will entitle it “ An act. to take away 
the liberties of American citizens.” That this 
bill is a crime, I will try to show. In the first 
place, this bill does not submit, as the gentle¬ 
man from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] very frank¬ 
ly acknowledges, to the people <>i Kansas the 
question, whether they will approve or reject 
the Lecorapton Constitution. 

Instead of that., sir, it submits to them a 
bribe in the way of lands aod money, and says 
to them, “ if you will vote for this proposition, 
‘ you may enue into the Union under the Con- 
* stitution framed at Leeompton on the 7th day 
‘of November, 1857; but if you reject this 
1 bribe, the penalty which will follow shall be 
‘ that you shall not come into the Union as a 
‘ State until you shall have a population equal 
‘ to the ratio of representation at the time of 
‘ your subsequent application.” I say such a 
thing is without precedent in the legislation of 
the country ; is unauthorized by and in direct 
contravention of the Constitution of the United 
Spates. There is nothing in the Constitution 
of the United States which gives colorable au¬ 
thority for such legislation. There is nothing 
in the past legislation ofthis country that gives 
colorable authority for it. It is a simple act of 
despotism, attempted to be enacted here by the 
Congress of the United States, under cover of 
that Constitution which bears the peerless name 
of Washington. It were better, sir, that that 
sacred instrument should perish as though 
smote by the lightning of heaven, than that 
any such act as that dow proposed should be 
placed upon our ste ute book. What is it? 
Why, that the Congress of the United States 
shall dictate to freemen that they shall accept 
under pains and penalties a bribe, and thereby 
become subject to a Constitution which they 
never made, w' ‘ch they abhor, and which they 
have condemned 1 I say, and say it without 
the fear of contradiction, that the genius of our 
Constitution is this: that new S^ate Constitu¬ 
tions must emauate from the people within the 
limits of the proposed State, and from no other 
s- nrce. In framing a State Constitution, they 
are subject to the limitations of the Federal 
Consiitut : j, and the limita' ; ons or restrictions 
imp lied by ac's of Congress. They may do 
anything in framing their Constitution that, is 
not inconsistent with the provisions of that 
instrument, or of such restrictive enactments. 
The moment they violate these provisions, their 



6 


Constitution ought to be rejected by Congress. 
That is our position. 

But this bill assumes the very contrary, and 
provides that Congress shall adopt a Constitu¬ 
tion which was trained by conspirators at Le 
compt.oa. The people ot Kansas never framed 
it, by delegates O'" otherwise. On the contrary, 
on the 4 h day of last January, ten thousand of 
the lawful voters of that Territory, a large ma 
jority of all its qualified ebctors, condemned 
this instrument at the ballot-box. Thev never 
framed that instrument. It was framed, 1 
admit, by delegates at Lecompton; but, as I 
had occasion to say on a former occasion, they 
were delegates whom the people had never 
chosen, nor authorized to be chosen, and they 
only sat in safety at Lecompton under cover of 
Federal bayonets. That fact is notorious ; and 
the President cf the United States, who is to¬ 
day, by the use of his pa'ronage, engineering 
this infernal proposition through the Congress 
of the United States, came before this body, 
and, by his message of the 2d day of February 
last, concedes to us and to the world, that the 
people of Kansas never framed this Constitu¬ 
tion. What does he say, sir ? Why, he says 
in that message, amoDgst other things, that 
ever since the day o* his inauguration—namely, 
the 4th of March, 1857—the people of Kansas 
have been in open rebellion against the Gov¬ 
ernment established there by Congress. He 
says, further, that they wished during all that 
time to establish a revolutionary Government 
under the so-called Topeka Constitution. He 
says, further, and therein lies the confession of 
the truth of this matter, that they were arrayed 
in such numbers against the existing authorities 
in that Territory, that they would have over¬ 
turned the Territorial Government — out of 
which sprung this Lecompton Constitution— 
but for the fact, to use his own words, that that 
Government was protected from their assaults 
by the troops of the United States. 

Now, I submit to you, sir, whether that is 
not a fair, unequivocal, open confession of the 
fact that the great majority of the people of 
Kansas never assented, from first to last, to 
any portion of that machinery which has re¬ 
sulted in the production of this Lecompton 
Constitution? Why, then, attempt to force it 
upon them with this penalty threatened on the 
one hand, and this bribe tendered on the other? 
Do you not impose an unjust &nd unfair con¬ 
dition by this bill, when you therein declare 
that, if the people accept this bribe , they shall 
come into the Union under the Lecompton 
Constitution, although they have only fifty 
thousand population ; but if they reject the 
bribe , they should not come in under a Consti¬ 
tution of their choice till they shall have a popu¬ 
lation of ninety-three thousand four hundred, 
the present ratio of representation, or a still 
greater number, if before that time the ratio 
be increased ? 

But, air, there is another objection to this 


measure. Suppose that the people of Kansas 
were permitted to vote directly upon this Con¬ 
stitution—I say that the Congress of the United 
States has duties to perform which it is not at 
liberty to waive ; and one of these duties is to 
see to it that no Constitution shall go into 
operation with the consent of Congress, which 
denies the right of a majority of the qualified 
voters to amend, alter, or change it, at their 
pleasure. Such a Constitution is not repub¬ 
lican. 

Now, sir, I assert that this Lecompton Con¬ 
stitution, by express provisions, excludes the 
majority from this right of amendment. What 
are its provisions in inis respect? First, that 
in any election to be held in said State, the 
qualifications of a voter shall be, that he be a 
male citizen of the United States , above the age 
of twenty-one years. (Article 8, section 1.) 
And section fourteen of the schedule provides 
that the Constitution shall never be amended or 
altered, u unless a majority of all the citizens 
of the State shall first nave voted for a Conven¬ 
tion/’ Now. every man knows that, under our 
free institutions, every person born of free 
parents within the jurisdiction of the United 
States, and who are residents thereof, is a citi¬ 
zen of the United States, and therefore of the 
State of his residence, whether such persons be 
male or female. The records ot the courts, in 
a thousand instances, bear witness to the fact 
that women and children, as well as men of 
jull age, are citizens of the Uoited States, and 
of the several States, This Lecompton Consti¬ 
tution limits the right of suffrage to male citi¬ 
zens of the United States over tweuty-ODe years 
of age, and at the same time said instrument 
provides that it shall never be amended or altered 
without the consent and approval of a majority 
of all the citizens by their votes at the polls. It 
simply requires an impossibility , when it says 
that a majority of the citizens, men, women, 
and children, of the Territory, shall assent, by 
ballot , to the Convention for amendment, when 
it declares that at any election only male citi¬ 
zens of the United States over twenty one years 
of age shall vote. That is the language and 
legal effect of this instrument. No man will 
undertake to gainsay that the language is there 
as I have quoted it. The words are plain; and 
when the words are plain, there is no room for 
construction, and no construction can be toler¬ 
ated. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I must hasten to the con¬ 
clusion of what I have to say. There is another 
provision in this Constitution to which I desire 
to call attention ; and that is, the provision that 
it shall never be so amended as to affect the 
ownership of property in slaves. What becomes 
of gentlemen’s notions of State sovereignty, if 
the Congress of the United States can give force 
and effect to such a law as this? Does not every 
man here know that even if my construction of 
the Constitution were wrong, and a majority of 
the qualified voters ot Kansas were to attempt 





7 


to amend their Constitution so as to abolish the 
ownership of property in slaves, after thin atro 
cious thing had become the fundamental law of 
the State by the assert of Congress, such amend¬ 
ment would be held by that citadel of Slavery, 
which is located in the base of this Capitol, to 
be in violation of vested rights, and therefore 
void ? The whole power of the General Gov 
ernment would be arrayed to sustain that vested 
right, if you please, against the expressed will 
of a majority of the people of Kansas. 

Sir, this is the first instance in which the Con¬ 
gress of the United States has attempted, by 
formal enactment, to give perpetuity to this in 
stitution of Slavery within the limits and juris¬ 
diction of a sovereign State. As a State-Rights 
man, standing here, pledged as I am to main 
tain the rights of the people and the rights of 
the States, I protest against this dangerous as¬ 
sumption of power, and claim that it is the right 
of the sovereign people within the limits of a 
State to abolish the institution of Slavery at their 
pleasure. Does any Representative from the 
South assert this power to be in Congress ? 

I do not object to restraints upon States in 
favor of liberty, and to the end that the Consti¬ 
tution of our common country may be upheld 
in full force, and that the great and sacred 
rights of human nature may not be infringed ; 
but I protest against this Lecompton conspira¬ 
cy, which denies the right of self government, 
and ignores the will of the majority, if ex¬ 
pressed, or attempted to be expressed, against 
despotism. Let gentlemen beware how they 
attempt, even under the power and shelter of 
a great central Government, more than impe¬ 
rial in its resources, to crush out the heart and 
conscience of the people. God is in History 
Let gentlemen give heed to its lessons of the 
terrible retribution which sometimes overtakes 
those who seek to establish an odious and hated 
despotism over the minds and conscience, the 
brain and heart of freemen. 

Sir, I claim for myself the same right as did 
the Congress of 1811, to inquire “whether this 
Lecompton Constitution is consistent with the 
provisions of the Federal Constitution f ” And, 
sir, I have come to the conclusion that it is 
not only inconsistent with the Constitution of 
the United States, but that it is in direct con¬ 
flict with the rights of every man, woman, and 
child, within the Territory of Kansas. 

Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman allow 
me to interrupt him ? 

Mr. BINGHAM. No, sir. If you please, I 
prefer to conclude what I have to say without 
interruption. This instrument declares that 
the right of property in slaves and their increase 
is not within the control of the majority of the 
people of the State; that this right is before and 
higher than any constitutional sanction. This 
instrument asserts another provision, the brutal 
despotism of which can hardly be equalled, ex¬ 
cept that recently exercised by Nicholas, whose 
hands were red with the blood of murdered Po¬ 


land and the assassinated liberty of Hungary. 
It isthe provision which dooms freemen, guihy 
of no crime, to perpetual exile. Such are some 
of the provisions of this infernal instrument 
framed at Lecompton, for which we are now 
callpd upon to vote. 

What, sir, are the arguments addressed to 
us to induce us to give our assent to this in¬ 
strument ? The President of the United States 
stoops from the position of his great office, hith¬ 
erto made illustrious by Washington, Adams, 
Jefferson, and Madison—he comes here into 
the Hall of this House of Representatives, and 
tells us that this Lecompton Constitution, with 
all its atrocious provisions, is eminently rea¬ 
sonable and proper, because Kansas, says he, 
“ is at this moment as much a slave State as 
Georgia or South Carolina.” And he does not 
stop with this. The President has officially 
declared to ns that these slave provisions are 
just and reasonable. Justice, sir, to sell a 
man’s wife? Justice to sell a child’s mother? 
Justice to drive a man, guilty of no crime, away 
from the land of his birth, from the scenes of 
bis childhood, from the graves of his kindred ? 
Justice to deny to a man the fruits of his 
own toil ? Justice to deny to a man the enjoy¬ 
ments of his own home? Justice to deny to 
a man the presence and prattle of his own chil¬ 
dren? Justice to deny to a man the convictions 
of his own soul? Justice 1 Justice, sir, is the 
unchanging and eternal rule of right; it is the 
attribute of the great God of Nature. It dwelt 
with him before worlds were *, it will abide 
with him when worlds perish 1 By the judg¬ 
ment of the Pagan and Christian world, it is 
injustice to deny to any man his right. 

Mr. Speaker, it is not justice to wantonly 
subject men, women, and children, at the arbi¬ 
trary will of another, to stripes and imprison¬ 
ment, to hunger and thirst, to cold and naked¬ 
ness, robbery and murder. To enslave a man 
is to murder him by slow torture. This will 
not pass for justice among men, until men for¬ 
get the distinctions between right and wrong, 
good and evil, virtue and vice. 

By this bill, sir, we are not only to sanction 
the monstrous atrocity of chattel Slavery, but 
we are to say, if the majority will accept the 
bribe, that atrocity shall be perpetual. We are 
to agree that the children of wrong and oppres¬ 
sion in Kansas shall have no deliverance in the 
future; that they and their children shall, from 
generation to generation, toil on in the house 
of their bondage; in the words of this instru¬ 
ment, that no alteration shall be made therein 
to affect the ownership of property in slaves. 
Sir, the American Congress, by this enactment, 
is to declare that if the majority will accept the 
bribe , the Congress of the United States will 
perpetuate the horrid lie that one man may of 
right sell his brother for thirty pieces of silver, 
as Judas sold our Lord ! 

I say to gentlemen, you may pass the bill, but 
you cannot make the lie perpetual. A lie can- 




8 


not live forever; it has no vitality in it. Sooner 
or later, it must perish. Perpetuate the atrocity 
that a majority may of right enslave the minor¬ 
ity, or drive it into returniess exile! M^ke this 
rule of wrong perpetual! There is nothing 
perpetual but God, His truth, His justice, and 
the creatures of His hand. I say to gentlemen 
on the other side, you have it in your power to 
save our country from this foul dishonor. Why 
do you hesitate to deny your assent to this 
great wrong ? Is it because you believe with 
the President “ that Slavery exists in Kansas 
under and by virtue of the Constitution of the 
United States?” Is it because you believe, 
with certain political economists of our day, 
that Slavery is ihe natural and normal condi 
tion of the laboring man ? If that be vour 
conviction, act it out; say so in words. It is 
your right and your duty to declare it. And 
by an open, manly avowal of it, you will com¬ 
mand the respect of those who differ from you 
lor your candor, if you can never hope to com¬ 
mand their approval of your principles. De¬ 
clare openly your true purpose and intent. For 
God’s sake, do not shirk this great issue under 
false, and, if I may be allowed the expression 
without meaning to be offensive, fraudulent 
pretences of State rights and popular sover¬ 
eignty. Why do you hesitate to say openly 
what your support of this bill manifestly im 
ports—that it is your purpose to establish and 
uphold chattel Slavery in Kansas under the 
forms of law and at all hazards ? Why do you 
hesitate to avow this purpose? Is it not be¬ 
cause you feel and know that its distinct avowal 


would electrify the nation, and summon it to a 
stern, united, defiant resistance ? 

I say to gentlemen on the other side, who 
compose the majority of this H >u3e, you may 
pass this bill into a law; you may induce the 
majority to accept its proffered bribe ; you may 
thereby impose upon that young Territory the 
shame and crime and curse of this brutal atroci¬ 
ty ; you may thereby shake down the pillars of 
this beautiful fabric of free government, and 
drench this land in fraternal blood; but you 
can never give permanence to such an act of 
perfidv, to such a system of wrong. It is too 
late for that; it is the high noon of the nine¬ 
teenth century. The whole heavens are filled 
with the light of a new and better day. Kings 
hold their power with a tremulous and unsteady 
band. The bastiles and dungeons of tyrants, 
those graves of human liberty, are giving up 
their dead. There is a pause in the world’s 
great battle. Its banners of conflict, which but 
yesterday streamed from Paris to Sc. Peters- 
burgh, are furled ; and to day, the mighty heart 
of the world stands still, awaiting the resurrec¬ 
tion of the nations, and that fiual triumph of 
the right, foretold in prophecy and invoked in. 
song, when the Angel of Deliverance shall lead 
captivity captive. In this hour of the world’s 
repose and the world’s hope, shall America, 
the child and the stay of the earth’s old age, 
prove false to her most sacred traditions, false 
to her holiest, trust, and, by this proposed enact¬ 
ment, consent to strike down Liberty in her 
own temple, and forge chains for her own chil¬ 
dren? 


WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 

1858 - library of congress 


Jill llll L Mil lllll II l.. 

0 016 087 971 3 


















